Author
Topic: Bitshares and anonymity (Read 1560 times)

First, to what extent Bitshare X will be anonymous? Will it come with a weaker, stronger or same level of anonymity than Bitcoin?

Also, in the first whitepaper bytemaster mentioned an eventual implementation of Zerocoin, but not in the new one.I understand that this will not come with Bitshare X, but is it still a possibility to implement something like Zerocoin in the following blockchain?

Imho it's a pretty big subject and a feature that is REALLY needed in the future.

Agree. I am a little worried that the crypto space will either be completely anonomous or will make complete survailance possible. Both is horrible with different cases for society as a whole.

A case where complete anonimity is obviously bad: Someone goes short on a company's stock -> attacks this company (bombing plants, injecting poison into food the company produces) -> takes profits anonymously.

I think most people and reasonable officals like Benjamin Lawsky see it the same way. It is a balance and extreme positions to either side will have more extreme disadavtanges than advtantages.

Goal imo must be to distribute power as much as possible. Extreme positions to either side will fail here.

Communication and working together with officials and an open PR policy will help to walk this fine line between complete anonymity and survailance.

I believe the fact that I3 has a corporate structure will help a lot here.

Agree. I am a little worried that the crypto space will either be completely anonomous or will make complete survailance possible. Both is horrible with different cases for society as a whole.

A case where complete anonimity is obviously bad: Someone goes short on a company's stock -> attacks this company (bombing plants, injecting poison into food the company produces) -> takes profits anonymously.

I think most people and reasonable officals like Benjamin Lawsky see it the same way. It is a balance and extreme positions to either side will have more extreme disadavtanges than advtantages.

Goal imo must be to distribute power as much as possible. Extreme positions to either side will fail here.

Communication and working together with officials and an open PR policy will help to walk this fine line between complete anonymity and survailance.

I believe the fact that I3 has a corporate structure will help a lot here.

I have been pondering this issue for a while and have come up with a possible structure that maintains decentralization and anonymity while allowing for a few points of reference. My own venture while having many similarities to DACs has an actual physical footprint, the risks, costs and profits involved are possibly huge so i've thought of using a "cell" strategy. It looks like a possible option to dealing with many issues that are limiting the crypto-space, for instance, by de-coupling central management and using user consensus, policies, strategies and changes can be adopted in an audit-able yet nigh untraceable way. pseudonyms are encouraged to protect all users. I am currently trying to figure out a method of one-time use deposit and withdrawal scheme for the exchange i am working on that will ensure that once a user confirms withdrawals and deposits of their fiat, their personal details are destroyed. Regulations here state that you must do KYC, but there are no post KYC regulations, as a result it is up to me whether to store or "lose" the data.

Agree. I am a little worried that the crypto space will either be completely anonomous or will make complete survailance possible. Both is horrible with different cases for society as a whole.

A case where complete anonimity is obviously bad: Someone goes short on a company's stock -> attacks this company (bombing plants, injecting poison into food the company produces) -> takes profits anonymously.

I think most people and reasonable officals like Benjamin Lawsky see it the same way. It is a balance and extreme positions to either side will have more extreme disadavtanges than advtantages.

Goal imo must be to distribute power as much as possible. Extreme positions to either side will fail here.

Communication and working together with officials and an open PR policy will help to walk this fine line between complete anonymity and survailance.

I believe the fact that I3 has a corporate structure will help a lot here.

I have been pondering this issue for a while and have come up with a possible structure that maintains decentralization and anonymity while allowing for a few points of reference. My own venture while having many similarities to DACs has an actual physical footprint, the risks, costs and profits involved are possibly huge so i've thought of using a "cell" strategy. It looks like a possible option to dealing with many issues that are limiting the crypto-space, for instance, by de-coupling central management and using user consensus, policies, strategies and changes can be adopted in an audit-able yet nigh untraceable way. pseudonyms are encouraged to protect all users. I am currently trying to figure out a method of one-time use deposit and withdrawal scheme for the exchange i am working on that will ensure that once a user confirms withdrawals and deposits of their fiat, their personal details are destroyed. Regulations here state that you must do KYC, but there are no post KYC regulations, as a result it is up to me whether to store or "lose" the data.

did you lay that out in details somewhere? Or is it still in your head only?

Agree. I am a little worried that the crypto space will either be completely anonomous or will make complete survailance possible. Both is horrible with different cases for society as a whole.

A case where complete anonimity is obviously bad: Someone goes short on a company's stock -> attacks this company (bombing plants, injecting poison into food the company produces) -> takes profits anonymously.

I think most people and reasonable officals like Benjamin Lawsky see it the same way. It is a balance and extreme positions to either side will have more extreme disadavtanges than advtantages.

Goal imo must be to distribute power as much as possible. Extreme positions to either side will fail here.

Communication and working together with officials and an open PR policy will help to walk this fine line between complete anonymity and survailance.

I believe the fact that I3 has a corporate structure will help a lot here.

I have been pondering this issue for a while and have come up with a possible structure that maintains decentralization and anonymity while allowing for a few points of reference. My own venture while having many similarities to DACs has an actual physical footprint, the risks, costs and profits involved are possibly huge so i've thought of using a "cell" strategy. It looks like a possible option to dealing with many issues that are limiting the crypto-space, for instance, by de-coupling central management and using user consensus, policies, strategies and changes can be adopted in an audit-able yet nigh untraceable way. pseudonyms are encouraged to protect all users. I am currently trying to figure out a method of one-time use deposit and withdrawal scheme for the exchange i am working on that will ensure that once a user confirms withdrawals and deposits of their fiat, their personal details are destroyed. Regulations here state that you must do KYC, but there are no post KYC regulations, as a result it is up to me whether to store or "lose" the data.

did you lay that out in details somewhere? Or is it still in your head only?

Lol, there is a half done paper that i passed to someone who can articulate things better than i, i'll have it on noirbitstalk.org Monday morning. If you check in the ALT DACS section you'll see the ANN for the CANDIDATE DAC. It falls under "CANDIDATE" because it is not autonomous but is decentralized and leans towards the corporate side of commerce. I have many docs to complete and publish over the next few days, so you'll see a lot of the driving ideas in print. I tend to be technical rather than articulate so i chose to finish the coding first then figure out how to put my ideas on paper. if only i could talk like i type.

I believe that the markets will produce results independent of any individuals political concept of what is 'good' or 'bad' and that attempts to engineer a proper-balance between privacy and transparency will likely fail, it is like trying to mix oil and water.

In the case of BitShares X, the privacy consideration is more or less identical to Bitcoin. In the case of Keyhotee Wallet, it will add increased privacy to both Bitcoin and BitShares X through dividing one transaction with many inputs going to one output into many transactions with a single input going to a single output and entirely eliminate the reuse of addresses. This process will make network analysis much harder.

In the case of Zerocoin technology, I have played with it and would like to integrate it in a future product.

As far as the Short, Poison, Profit potential is concerned, this cannot be prevented... see 9/11 for an example of people who did this with our current system and yet were never caught.

A business would counter this kind of attack with insurance which would make the Short, Poison, Profit attack backfire as it would yield profits for the company rather than losses. If the company attempted to perform a false-flag to commit insurance fraud you are no longer dealing with anonymous individuals!

Logged

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.orgAnything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else. These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

I believe that the markets will produce results independent of any individuals political concept of what is 'good' or 'bad' and that attempts to engineer a proper-balance between privacy and transparency will likely fail, it is like trying to mix oil and water.

I agree.It is very important to have a fully anonymous currency just in case the US government decide to take advantage of the transparency of the network and thereby lead humanity in an orwellian society. (And the more I think about it the more I think this scenario has a high probability)

Maybe the market will choose the transparent currencies while governments don't mess around. But the day the power decide to become evil then it is essential to have the possibility to switch to a fully anonymous currency.

Quote

In the case of Zerocoin technology, I have played with it and would like to integrate it in a future product.

As far as the Short, Poison, Profit potential is concerned, this cannot be prevented... see 9/11 for an example of people who did this with our current system and yet were never caught.

There was no material profit taken from 9/11 though. Attacks like that could become a business model. No one wants that.

Quote

A business would counter this kind of attack with insurance which would make the Short, Poison, Profit attack backfire as it would yield profits for the company rather than losses. If the company attempted to perform a false-flag to commit insurance fraud you are no longer dealing with anonymous individuals!

...this would still increase overall costs and therefore would not be profits for the company.

I mean I DO agree with you that full transparency would lead to survalilance and total control which would be horrible in many ways. But this should not lead us to close our eyes towards as horrible things on the other side of the anonymity/transparency specturum. Idiologies (simpliefied and moral categorial systems) help us to close our eyes to the complexity of the world. LET THIS MOVEMENT BE DIFFERENT! No ideologies, only means to ends/goals.

There was a post somewhere else pointing to this video http://altcoinpress.com/2014/02/altcoins-rising-bitcoin-the-altavista-as-google-waits-in-wings/The first presentation has a simple and i think valid point: You wount just install your own system apart from the establishment. If you win with your appraoch your system becomes the standard. So there is no way around having a society (world) wide discussion because everyone would be effected. Governments, as imperfect as they work, are the enitites deciding on laws on behalf of te society as a whole. Governments, next to the media, other social movements, everyone, are players that should be involved in this anonymity/transparency discussion.

Governments decide laws on behalf of special interest, not society as a whole.

As far as philosophy is concerned, I do not subscribe to end justifies the means approach even though many (most?) do.

So if the market demands privacy then voluntary transactions will produce this result and make a profit by doing so. If the market demands transparency then I suppose we shall have transparency; however, such lack of privacy over financial matters could be worse than the scenarios you are concerned about.

Remember, lack of privacy is only *one* means of achieving the end of 'accountability'.... after all, suppose someone took out a short position and profited as a result of food being poisoned. That doesn't prove knowledge or involvement and without some other kind of evidence is not even a basis for violating their rights or a warrant.

I would suggest that the deterrence against such attacks can be achieved through some other means than the one suggested. Privacy need not be sacrificed in the name of public good.

Logged

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.orgAnything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else. These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

...LET THIS MOVEMENT BE DIFFERENT! No ideologies, only means to ends/goals...

Note that this is itself an ideology, and as bytemaster suggests, a very dangerous one. It's also incomplete. What ideology defines these ends/goals that apparently we're pursuing without regard to costs?

Governments decide laws on behalf of special interest, not society as a whole.> I totally agree here. "Society as a whole" is an approximation.

As far as philosophy is concerned, I do not subscribe to end justifies the means approach even though many (most?) do. > The concept is meant to take into account different goals and different means: The means of government survailance for my perscoallny doesnt justify the end of security because another goald is compromised on the way. I described "means to ends" as opposed to idiology which has no goals but to have a stable perspective on the world and make sense of the world this way.

So if the market demands privacy then voluntary transactions will produce this result and make a profit by doing so. If the market demands transparency then I suppose we shall have transparency; however, such lack of privacy over financial matters could be worse than the scenarios you are concerned about.> Could be. I didnt say what is worse or better. What I said was: Let's not just look at one side. The other thing I said was: Idiology makes you do that (having pre known solutions without analyzing pros and cons of a solution). > I totally disagree about the market being able to deliver a transparency solution because this would need an agreement to have it. In a world of individuals no one would have an incentive to compromise his privacy if the other ones doent. So there has to be an agreement by all to compromise their privacy. This is a freerider problem and can NOT be served by a market.

Remember, lack of privacy is only *one* means of achieving the end of 'accountability'.... after all, suppose someone took out a short position and profited as a result of food being poisoned. That doesn't prove knowledge or involvement and without some other kind of evidence is not even a basis for violating their rights or a warrant.> Doesnt prove it, right. But if the attacker is having 99% of the shorting volume in a day/week/month and he is known. Law enforcement would have a starting point. And the system would work if law enforcement would do a good job plus if it would not be corrupted in some way in that perticular respect. [to demonstrate what I mean by ideology: Some liberal idiologist (not to be confused with someone that is highly valuing liberal values!) would have an opinion here right away as soon as he hears the words "law enforcement" and "coruption" in one sentence. Law enforcement is often corrupted but that doesnt mean it mostly is. Tha's why I said "that perticular respect"]

I would suggest that the deterrence against such attacks can be achieved through some other means than the one suggested. Privacy need not be sacrificed in the name of public good. > Do you have some of these other means on your mind?

...LET THIS MOVEMENT BE DIFFERENT! No ideologies, only means to ends/goals...

Note that this is itself an ideology, and as bytemaster suggests, a very dangerous one. It's also incomplete. What ideology defines these ends/goals that apparently we're pursuing without regard to costs?

No one defines these ends! It is an open discussion which should involve as many people as possible. I tried to further describe what I meand by idiology the the post above.

This single statement implies some assumptions I reject. By saying it cannot be solved by a market you imply it must be solved by force. As such you have given up looking for market solutions and accepted the shortcut of force.... that the end (solving the free rider problem) justifies the means (government force).

So while you argue utility and against ideology, I argue principle. My principles are very simple and are the foundation upon which everything I am working toward is built: namely don't do unto others what you don't want others doing unto you. If that ideology gets in the way of so-called potential solutions then they obviously are not complete solutions.

I recognize your greater point though of being open minded about potential solutions, my only point is that you shouldn't rule out market solutions to problems with a broad assumption as that is being closed minded and ideological...

Now I have no interest in starting a debate about who is being ideological or closed minded, so please don't take anything I have said personally. I am arguing with the ideas, not with you as a person.

Logged

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.orgAnything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else. These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Now I have no interest in starting a debate about who is being ideological or closed minded, so please don't take anything I have said personally. I am arguing with the ideas, not with you as a person.

Dont worry I dont take anything in a bad way

Quote

This single statement implies some assumptions I reject. By saying it cannot be solved by a market you imply it must be solved by force. As such you have given up looking for market solutions and accepted the shortcut of force.... that the end (solving the free rider problem) justifies the means (government force).

I would like to be proved wrong because the state solution is faulty! The prevailing soultion is to have an agreement of as many people as possible (on questions like taxes (yes, no, how) etc.). And you are rigth there is force (mostly the thread of force) applied to those that dont agree. Most states exclude some unalienable rights from these agreements. But, and I think you agree, the process can be faulty (what is unalienable? Also the definitions of these unalienable rights can be bent) and with the non-unalienable rights rarely all will agree.

But the "state system" does deliver some things: It protects most rights which most people agree the be most valueable and those are (basically: see faults above + possibly corrupt law enforcement) granted to all individuals (if the state system if working right!) in the same way independent of the economic possibilities to afford these rights. There are a few more things but that is the core I would say.

A differnent solution would have to improve upon this system.

All I wanted to say is that any solution should be approached from the same neutral standpoint and dis- and advantages of any system should be taken seriously. This is the responsinility of any actor that can have an effect on peoples lives in an indirect way.

edit: I will read the article you suggested as soon as I find the time to.